Obama gets one right

[Embar Angylwrath]

At least there's one policy change I can agree with...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 16651R.DTL

[Partha]

Well, I'm glad to see you're not a COMPLETE member of the Party of No.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

It'll be a great tool for those state governments to make some money, that's for sure.

[Kulaf]

Well, I'm glad to see you're not a COMPLETE member of the Party of No.

So rather than trying to push through a law making it legal at the Federal level NOW you are in favor of the President not faithfully executing the law?

[Harlowe]

Kulaf loves to find something negative in everything this president does. Seriously. Everything.

[Embar Angylwrath]

C'mon Kulaf, there's lots of circumstances where law enforcement chooses priorities and allocates resources to those priorities. Busting medical marijuana clinics should be the last on the list for the DEA, there's plenty for them to do first. And I'm surprised you're slapping at this since this is clearly a states' rights issue versus heavy handed federalism. Pretty much the ONLY reason this was a "priority" for the DEA, was so the Federal government could send a message to the states that the Feds will trump states rights when it suits their fancy. This policy was nothing more than heavy-handedness to send a message, and it spent inordinate amounts of money to have a negligible effect on the availability of illegal drugs.

If the DEA were serious about this shit, they'd interdict distribution channels instead of beating pots on the 6 o'clock news by raiding some pot shop that's dispensing smoke to cancer patients.

[Kulaf]

Has nothing to do with whether I think Obama is right or wrong.....has to do with Partha's hypocricy when it comes to which president isn't enforcing which laws.

[Lurker]

There's a difference between a President authorizing actual lawbreaking (torture, warrantless wiretapping, contempt of Congress...to name a few), which is what Partha had a problem with and you didn't seem to care about, and a President deciding where he wants to devote limited law enforcement resources.

[Partha]

Has nothing to do with whether I think Obama is right or wrong.....has to do with Partha's hypocricy when it comes to which president isn't enforcing which laws.

Well, no, because I never actually mentioned in this post anything about what I thought about marijuana laws OR enforcement, merely that Embar actually agreed with an Obama initiative. Can you try reading what I post next time?

[Freecare Spiritwise]

It's certainly a policy change, but really the war on drugs is broke. People are still using, and every day drugs like cannibis slip lower and lower on the nation's list of priorities. And on the state level enforcement has been lax for some time. The feds are just catching up to where the states - at least the more progressive ones - already were.

At least anywhere on the left coast, you'd have to pretty much be an idiot or a dealer to see handcuffs for getting high. I've spoken about this with many cops in CA over the years, and a guy like me smoking a joint in the privacy of his own home is pretty much zero priority. In 25 years of getting high the only people I've seen actually get popped were being total asses and all they got was community service.

I've spent a lot of time in Oregon and I'm convinced that just about everyone in the whole state gets high. I've seen teenagers walking down the street and people in their cars at stoplights puffing out.

And I've been talking about recreational use. I don't know many people at all who are opposed to giving it to someone with 6 months to live. If someone is dying of cancer then they're probably giving them enough heavy narcotics to make a rock star jealous, but it's immoral to give them a joint? Oh noes, they might turn into a hippy and start driving a Prius right before they die.

So whether this signals an end to our draconian drug laws or we just plum don't have the money to enforce these laws because we gave it all to criminals in the financial system, the effect is really the same, and I welcome the change.

[Rykilth]

Just to throw this out there...
SB 420 Compassionate Use act primarily had cancer patients in mind, however you can claim headaches, backaches, finger aches, etc. and get a prescription written for medicinal marijuana.

In California, someone under the influence of marijuana does not fall under the 11550(a)H&S code, but rather the 647(f)PC code of public intoxication. In other words, basically unable to care for himself or others are the elements of the crime, which you probably won't see in someone under the influence of marijuana unless it's their first time.

The only problem I see and have seen, is when it's mixed with driving due to divided attention and multi-tasking. That still falls under 23152(a) which is a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, however impairment has to be proven for this to stick.